Questions from a Ewe

"Test everything; retain what is good.” (1 Thes 5:21) A laywoman expresses concerns about issues in the Roman Catholic Church to foster positive dialogue by posing and exploring questions.
Please remember that Canon Law says it is not only a right but a duty to question the church. Also, Canon Law provides an over-riding power to the sensus fidelium (sense of the faithful). By this, Canon Law says that if the sensus fidelium (collective of the faithful) reject a law, it is not valid.

Sunday, October 14, 2018

This past Thursday I received a bulk email sent to
parishioners from the parish’s Director of Administration advising us of our
pastor’s resignation and inviting parishioners to attend a Q&A session
today.Since I cannot attend, I sent my
questions in an email this morning to the parish’s Director of Admin, the
interim pastor, and my bishop.I thought
readers might want to see my questions so here is a copy of my note:

Dear Keith, Fr Gary, and Bp Earl,

Thank you for the information.

Keith, You might remember me as the person who
donated the original artwork of “the Red Crucifixion” which used to hang in the
St John center basement.

I cannot attend today’s meeting.
However, here are my questions.

The term being used is “sexual harassment” vs
sexual assault. Their legal ramifications differ. Has it been
strictly sexual harassment which violates Michigan and federal civil rights laws
as a form of discrimination, or did it also involve sexual assault which
violates criminal law?

Regardless, what steps have been taken to hold
Mark, St Thomas and the Lansing Diocese legally responsible for the sexual
harassment? What legal authorities have been contacted and involved?
Please describe the legal process and where we are within that
process.

How many people were sexually harassed by
Mark?

How recently did the harassment occur and over
what length of time did it occur?

How many times did Mark harass each person?
Once? A few times? Dozens of times? Hundreds of times?

Were the people who were harassed male, female
or some of each?

Were the people harassed parishioners?

What were the general age categories of those
harassed: pre-school, pre-teen, teen, university/young adult, adult?

What was the nature of the harassment:
unwanted touch, unwanted sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, exposure,
providing a hostile environment such as subjecting employees/parishioners to
sexual jokes, remarks, pictures or graphics, employment or advancement related
threats or quid pro quo offers, etc...?

It has been said multiple times Mark is
undergoing “therapy.” What exactly does that mean?

According to psychologists, regardless if the
harassed are male or female, there are 4 common characteristics of sexual
harassers. They typically have:

2) Moral disengagement- a cognitive process by
which person justifies his own bad behavior and creates his own alternate
reality where moral norms do not apply to him: a) portrays harassment as
acceptable, b) uses euphemistic terminology, c) displaces responsibility such
as blames culture, d) creates advantageous comparisons (at least it wasn’t...)
to minimize infraction, e) shifts blame (“she was wearing....so should have
expected....”)

3) employment in male dominated field

4) hostile attitude towards women

Some, if not all, of those psychological characteristics are inherent or
prevalent in Catholic hierarchical culture. How do you anticipate therapy
for one individual will cure the Catholic hierarchy’s sexist culture? Due
to the church’s male hegemony and long standing male hegemonic praxis, this
sexism often is considered “normal” by many in the church, especially the
hierarchy.

I have experienced innumerable homilies that
are sexist (sexual harassment) and countless individual conversations with
priests that are sexist (sexual harassment). I have received sexist
lectures and penance in reconciliation...also sexual harassment. Canon
law and doctrine include sexist notions and the priesthood itself is sexist.
How were you able to discern and distinguish Mark’s sexual harassment
from the institutional sexual harassment endemic in Catholic culture?

When I have complained about sexist words or
actions, I have been brushed off and told how mistaken I was. I am very
curious to understand the unique situation here in which Catholic officials
actually acknowledged sexual harassment occurred.

Know of my prayers for you and all involved.

I did not say this in my note but I will offer it here. Due to the endemic sexist culture within the Catholic hierarchy, I have difficulty suppressing a desire to speculate that the harassed must have been with a man, possibly a clergy member, for the person to have been taken seriously. Sexist treatment of women often is "de riguer" with many Catholic hierarchy.

In a stroke of
irony, within a day of receiving the note about my pastor’s resignation for
sexual harassment, I received an email invitation from the Diocesan Director of
Communications, inviting me to the diocese’s oh-so-sexist “Arise my Beloved” Catholic
Women’s Conference.

I encourage
people, as they are called, to engage with the hierarchy, asking the tough
questions that need to be asked.

As luck would have it, I have a business trip scheduled to
Rome later this month.Therefore, I
replied to my bishop that I would like his help requesting a private discussion
with Pope Francis regarding my ideas.He
kindly responded, “I don’t have the foggiest idea how such can be arranged,”
but wished me luck.I’m not sure I
believe that a bishop doesn’t know how to request a discussion with the pope
but, maybe he meant he doesn’t know how to request one for a mere lay woman.Regardless, that’s a tragedy because either
he truly doesn’t know how to ask for a discussion with his own boss or he doesn’t
want to and is comfortable prevaricating about it.

Rather than be discouraged, I donned my imaginary thinking
cap, in this case a pointy bishop’s mitre, to ponder what I would do if I were a
bishop desiring a discussion with the pope.I decided to write Archbishop Christophe Pierre, the papal nuncio in
Washington, D.C., since he is the pope’s emissary in the U.S.

Here is the text of my email, sent September 15, 2018 to the
papal nuncio:

Dear
Abp Christophe Pierre,

I
will be in Rome speaking at a business conference. I arrive October 19
and leave October 26. I request a private discussion with the Holy Father
so as to discuss inherent issues in Canon Law that make addressing the global
systemic abuse crisis near impossible without changing them. I asked my
local bishop, Earl Boyea, how I might make such a request. Since he was
uncertain, I thought I would next try you as the Papal Nuncio.

There
is an inherent governance problem in that Canon Law entrusts writing,
interpreting and enforcing the law to the same demographic group. This is
a classic structure that enables abuse. Canon 223 is just one example of
making clerics all-powerful in governing the church.

The
Canons which place clerics above lay people (207, 223, 247, etc...) possibly
impede addressing the abuse issue but ones such as 212 which insist lay people
obey their pastor (who might be molesting them or their child) are extremely
problematic.

The
12 Canons pertaining to secrecy also must be examined and possibly revised.

Furthermore,
Canon Law ties itself in knots making it near impossible to correct Canon
Law. But, we need to examine and alter Canon Law to have effective checks
and balances instead of hoping and wishing that clerics are spun of superior
moral fabric and able to self-police. With over 200 dioceses globally
having abuses reported to date, we can be confident that this is an inaccurate
belief leading to a failed governance model on this topic.

In
addition to my professional position as an executive level consultant who
advises on business governance, I hold a master degree in theology from Loyola
University. I think that we have spent too many years having primarily
clerics who lack objectivity trying unsuccessfully to self-police their
own. We can see the globally systemic problem and easily conclude that
they are unable to address the problem themselves. I offer my perspective
as an educated, accomplished professional, mother and lay person in addition to
someone with a fair amount of theological training. I hope that you give
my request serious consideration.

I
look forward to the favor of a reply.

Thank
you for your consideration of my request. Know of my prayers for you.

On September 27,
2018 I received an email from the Apostolic Nunciature with an attached letter
from Abp. Pierre. As an interesting yet
ironic aside, he marked the letter “personal and confidential.”This means he wished his response to my concerns
about secrecy to remain … secret!I will
pause a moment for you to stop banging your head upon a hard surface.

Due to being marked
confidential, rather than share the full document, I will summarize and quote
excerpts.He said that arranging a
private discussion between me and the pope “would not be opportune.”He went on to explain that the group that is “the
proper body” to recommend Canon Law changes to the pope is the Pontifical
Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts.Furthermore, he said that aside from
interpreting Canon Law, this body also carries the responsibility “to present
legislative proposals to the Holy Father.”Did I not explain in my original email that part of the problem is the
same people who write the laws also interpret them?Thanks for proving my point, Abp. Pierre.I only wish you would have gotten the point
too.

The archbishop
suggested that, rather than present my ideas directly to the Pontifical Council
on Legislative Texts, I take this circuitous route:First share my ideas with my bishop, which I’ve
already done.Then, hope that he will
decide to present them to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Canonical
Affairs Committee, or perhaps give it a go to try to contact this committee
myself.So, rather than go straight to
the guy in power, he recommends that I navigate an administrative maze of
bishops, to share my ideas about how to hold these very bishops and their
brother bishops more accountable, a matter they have a vested interest in preventing.Thanks for proving my point again, Abp.
Pierre.

Here is my email
response sent to Abp. Pierre September 30, 2018.I will let you know if I receive a reply.

Dear
Abp Christophe Pierre,

Thank
you for your response. However, moved by the Holy Spirit instilled in me
at my baptism and strengthened in me during my confirmation, I must conclude
that your response is unsatisfactory. Please accept my deep apologies for
not expressing myself more clearly. I wish to discuss with Pope Francis
the globally systemic clergy abuse crisis, the foundations for historically
ineffective approaches addressing it, and possible ways to address it
effectively, some of which involve Canon Law modifications.

Your
response said my request to meet with Pope Francis "would not be
opportune." Your word selection of "opportune" means you
believe the timing of my request is not convenient. Please inform me at
what time will it be convenient for the pope to have a serious discussion with
a layperson about making effective changes to rid the Church of the clergy sex
abuse scourge?

I
note your deflection of my request to a series of bureaucratic bodies, all
staffed by the very bishops who need to be held accountable. Please help me
understand how asking those who have demonstrated profound ineffectiveness in
addressing clergy abuse and often contributed to mishandling abuse cases should
now be the very people through whom we channel all suggestions? Their combined
ineffectiveness, complicity, and choke-hold on recommending change suggest
another route must be pursued.

As
an example, Cardinal DiNardo, current president of the USCCB, is both being
criticized by abuse survivors as mishandling abuse cases (ref: Des Moines
Register article dated September 27, 2018 entitled, "Cardinal DiNardo, at
center of clergy abuse crisis, accused of mishandling cases in Iowa and
Texas") and the person who recently led a delegation to meet with Pope
Francis about the abuse crisis. In U.S. culture, we call this, "the
fox guarding the hen house."

It
also confuses me as to why you believe I must communicate with the pope
exclusively through a body that did not exist before 1984. Surely today's
Vicar of Christ would want to imitate Christ in being accessible to all people
rather than enshrouding himself in high ranking clergy and bureaucratic
process. Otherwise, he damages his credibility as Christ's
representative, does he not? I know my bishop readily meets with me as
part of his imitation of Christ. Why would the pope not want to do
likewise?

Furthermore,
in U.S. culture we have a children's game called "telephone operator"
in which children sit in a circle and one child whispers their message into the
ear of the next child. That child does the same and the activity
continues until the last child in the circle whispers the message in the
originator's ear. That message whispered into the originator's ear is
always quite distorted from the originator's original message. Your
recommendation to go through several communication levels seems destined to
distort my Spirit instilled messages. (I believe you suggest I talk to my
bishop who talks to the USCCB Canonical Affairs Committee which talks to the
Legislative Law Pontifical Council which talks to the Pope.) In addition
to distorting the message, this circuitous route displays a shockingly
dehumanizing lack of urgency. It also deprives us of my authentic female
voice by forcing my communications through a series of men's heads and
voices. That too is shockingly dehumanizing and confusing, especially
since Pope Francis repeatedly says he wishes to increase the volume of female
voices in the Church. Why would we forego an opportunity to demonstrate
Pope Francis' commitments to both addressing systemic clergy abuse and
increasing the role of women's voices in the Church?

Therefore,
my dear brother in Christ, I ask you to reflect further on Mark 3:28-29,
"Amen, I say to you, all sins and all blasphemies that people utter will
be forgiven them. But whoever denies the holy Spirit will never have
forgiveness, but is guilty of an everlasting sin.” The Spirit guides me
to speak to the Pope just as the Spirit guided Ste. Therese de Lisieux to speak
to Pope Leo XIII in 1884 and St. Catherine of Siena to communicate with Popes
Gregory XI and Urban VI in the 1370s.

I
wish you all the best and please be assured of my prayers for you.

In whatever ways fit your personal context and in which you
are called to do so, I encourage everyone to engage with the hierarchy,
respectfully and insistently. If you
anticipate their likely polite dismissiveness, you won’t feel rejected and also
won’t be deterred.Also, I approach the
clergy as an equal.Though many respond
as though I am subordinate, I know better and just don’t fall for it.

Sunday, September 2, 2018

It’s been a very long time.The demands of caring for an aging parent combined with those of
traveling extensively for work provide precious few moments to write.However, recent hubbub compels me to
sacrifice a few moments of sleep to write.

At Mass last weekend, the priest spoke of the clergy abuse revelations
in Pennsylvania and described it as, “the scandal in Pennsylvania.”With 200+ dioceses and growing having abuse
scandals worldwide, we are safe to call it “globally systemic” rather than
confine it to any geographic area as if it were a surprising anomaly.Let’s stop being shocked that the abuse is
uncovered in yet another group of dioceses.Let’s work to shine the light to expose it everywhere and fix it.

The pastor discussed the PA abuse scandal while defending
the Lansing diocese’s decision to continue holding its “Made for Happiness”
Diocesan Assembly in a few weeks despite this latest sex abuse scandal news.Tragically ironic, the diocesan shindig will
be held at Michigan State University’s Breslin Center, the basketball arena for
a university recently publicly criticized for institutional enablement of a
serial child molester, Dr. Larry Nassar.Side note: Prior to prison, Nassar was a devout Catholic in the Lansing diocese.The diocese could only be more tone-deafly insensitive
if it asked Larry Nassar to speak at the assembly.

All this pissed me off but did not compel me to write.No, no…it took former papal nuncio to the
U.S., Archbishop Vigano’s recently published lengthy letter calling for Pope
Francis’ resignation to do that.

Vigano, whilst self-righteously adjusting his imaginary
halo, wrote that Francis knew about Cardinal McCarrick’s serial sexually
abusive misdeeds and tsk, tsked at him for doing nothing.Just a little aside here: Francis, Benedict,
John Paul II, Paul VI, etc… all knew about and participated in abuse cover-ups
too. Why is Vigano ok canonizing JPII as
a saint but wants Francis fired?Regardless,
let’s pause a moment to understand how news about sexually abusive priests gets
from the US to dear old popes.IT’S
THROUGH THE PAPAL NUNCIO!Vigano would
have had knowledge not just about McCarrick but about EVERY SINGLE SEXUALLY
ABUSIVE PRIEST reported to any Catholic official in the US.

So, dear Mr. Vigano, you knew about McCarrick too and did
not report him to civil authorities.Nor
did you report to civil authorities any of the sexual crimes priests committed
against children during your tenure.Therefore, please dispense with your political posturing for papal power
until you first return your pointy hat, signet ring and blinged-out crosier to
the “Shamed Bishops” department and tender your own resignation. Thank you, ever so much.

I also cannot overlook noting that Vigano’s come-lately concern
about sexual abuse was about …wait for it…not any of the thousands of kids
molested by priests, even those suffering during his tenure…no, it’s only about
sexual harassment endured by that precious subclass of humans which clerics
believe sit above the rest of humanity, seminarians and fellow priests.That speaks volumes.

As occurs following each scandalous revelation, there’s a
flurry of advice on how to fix the church…female priests, ditch celibacy, laity
takeover the church…whatever.Please
indulge me in offering my advice to the dialogue…oh, sorry, was dreaming for a
minute there – that the hierarchy actually sought sincere dialogue about how to
fix its systemic criminal activities.Nonetheless, here are my thoughts.

It’s all about governance.According to Canon Law, those who write the laws are the same who interpret
the laws and are the same who enforce the laws.That is a system destined for abuse and corruption – two longstanding
trademarks of the hierarchy.

To add to their death-grip on all ecclesiastic power (Canon
223 and others), Canon Law includes several Canons that make it near impossible
to overturn existing laws.This is a
trap that results from belief in their own perfection.If you believe you are perfect, then how
could you write imperfect laws?And
since you don’t write imperfect laws, why would they need to be
overturned.

Canon law divides humanity into lay people and clerics (Canon
207), setting clerics above laity (Canon 223, 247 and others) and actually
demanding that lay people revere and obey their pastor because pastors are the
best representation of Christ for lay people (Canon 212).As a side note, Canon Law decrees clerical
institutions such as seminaries to be ecclesiastical juridical people (Canon
238).Yes, yes, seminaries are people
too according to Canon Law.As
ecclesiastical people, they not only are people but more powerful people than
ones of non-clergy flesh and blood variety.

This is all problematic in itself but then, the hierarchy do
two additional insidious things: 1) They say you must receive Jesus via Holy Communion
and 2) incarcerate Jesus in the tabernacle and declare only they can summon Jesus
to dwell amongst us in the form of the Blessed Sacrament.In simpler terms they in essence say, “you
need what I got, or you die and I’m the only provider.”A drug cartel could not wish for a better
setup.

But wait, it gets more insidious.Canon Law includes 12 Canons which codify obligations
to maintain secrecy (Canons 127, 269, 471, 645, 983, 1131, 1132, 1455, 1457,
1546, 1548 and 1602).Canon Law reflects
the hierarchy’s normalization of its stunningly unhealthy culture of secrecy
and court intrigue.Transfer a priest
from diocese to diocese in secrecy?Canon Law says that’s ok.Hold in
secret things that the brotherhood doesn’t want to divulge?Canon Law approves of that too.

As Canon Law stands today a priest molests a child but the
child is taught that this guy is the closest thing to Jesus the child is going to
encounter on Earth and he’s the guy who will give the child the Eucharist, without
which the child will be damned forever.If the
priest is reported, the hierarchy can deal with him and his trial in secrecy
and transfer him in secrecy.Meanwhile,
the parents and kid have to worry if they report the guy, will they be shunned
or excommunicated, cutting themselves off from what they are taught is their
only chance at eternal life.

Canon Law lacks checks and balances on power and depends instead upon a belief that men of superior moral ilk occupy positions of
ecclesiastical power.I think 2000+
years of history prove that assumption breathtakingly wrong.

Short of a major overhaul of Canon Law, instilling a viable
set of power checks by offering ecclesiastical power to lay people in equal
levels to clerics while also ridding it of codes of secrecy, obedience to pastors,
a sense of clerical superiority over lay people, and hand-binding laws against
fixing the laws, the church will not seriously or successfully address its
issues of systemic abuse.

I hold little hope that the same men who write into law what
gives them absolute power will voluntarily change those laws.Withholding money and subjecting them to
legal recourse have some effect.However, I think
that people just need to both openly challenge the hierarchy and make the
hierarchy irrelevant in their lives.This is easier said than done in some countries, but I believe it is
essential to force change and protect children.

Side note: The Lansing Diocesan Assembly offers free
admission, but you must pre-register.Here’s a link
in case you’d like to acquire tickets to use or dispose of as you see fit.Their website indicates they offer free child
care, and we all know what a great reputation the church has for taking care of
kids.

Monday, January 22, 2018

The Mass I attended this Sunday ended as it typically does, with
applause…a resounding, “Yay for us!” It’s
a big reason I actively avoid this parish. The homily and the announcements
echoed the same message, “Yay us” whilst metaphorically pounding each other with
hearty congratulatory, “good job” pats on the back.

Allow me to elaborate on the “Yay us” messages…parenthetical statements
are my commentary.

The deacon gave the homily and described how he, his brother deacons and their (dutiful)
wives (bowing to the church hierarchy’s sexist clergy hegemonic praxis) spent a
day last September at an economically challenged parish in Flint, Michigan…(the
city of famed poisoned water due to short-term cost-cutting decisions made by
public officials, many of whom were supported by the Michigan Catholic
Conference of Bishops and their pay-pray-and-obey followers).He explained how this group of “humble
servants” ministered to people in that neighborhood, “helping transform their lives”
(seemingly oblivious to any connection between voting and lifestyle patterns as
causes of poverty which transformed lives in a negative way.)

Are you envisioning his uni-directional arrow of “goodness” flowing
from his “us” of deacons and their wives to his “them” of the economically
challenged yet?In case not, please
allow me to continue.

He also described that while members of his “us” group took turns
piously praying before the exposed Blessed Sacrament, a few women from his
“them” group who “by the way they were dressed you could guess that they were
ladies of the night” knelt at the altar too.This he celebrated as some dramatic transformational “turn away from
sin” moment.(He seemed oblivious to his
arrogant sinful judgement about these women simply based upon their attire and,
even if he guessed their profession accurately, isolated them in sin without
mentioning the sins of their male clients…thus overlooking his own sin of
sexism as well….but…”yay us.”)

The group distributed backpacks filled with school supplies to about
900 children (many if not most of whom are more economically vulnerable since
September due to additional bishop-supported politicians failing to approve the
Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) funding renewal.)

Again, completely oblivious to the direct connection between the church
hierarchy’s support for political candidates whose policies often worsen
poverty, he seemed very proud of the “us” group for “helping” the “them” group
and boasted how the “us” group’s work was helping the “them” group “turn away
from sin” (which somehow he seemed to equate with poverty).

Mass concluded with extolling all the “great work” done by Catholic
Charities and he even had board members who were present at Mass stand, be
recognized and congratulated with applause…”Yay us…”

The cadence of “Yay us” messages made retaining my breakfast difficult
because here’s what I heard.“Look at
all those sinful poor people and ‘yay us’ because we let God use us to help
those poor sinful people on the margins.Aren’t we the best Christians?We
even got some ‘bad girls’ to kneel in piety…aren’t we awesome?”I cannot celebrate small gestures sprinkled
upon poor people because I wish poverty did not exist.I mourn the causes of poverty and examine my
role in them.I abhor people turning
other’s misfortune into their feel-good-about-myself opportunities.

In my head I thought, “What profound arrogance!The people most in need of transformation
seem to be those congratulating and promoting themselves.”But doesn’t this type of double exploitation
of the poor reflect much of U.S. Catholicism right now?First such Catholics support candidates,
policies and practices that cause poverty or exploit those living in it, and
then they undertake feel-good-about-myself “ministry,” the positive impact of
which dwarfs in comparison to the damage their lifestyle inflicts upon the poor.

The recessional hymn was, “Be Not Afraid,” so I decided to confront the
deacon who delivered the “Yay us” messages.I expressed my concerns about sexism, arrogance, self-promotion and the exploitation of the
poor in both contributing to their poverty and using ministry to the poor as a
feel-good activity. I told him doing the
latter is what we call “poverty pimping” in that poor people become an instrument
for other people to feel good about themselves.

I am tired of hollow preaching pitying and denouncing others without
climbing into their wounds to truly understand their situation.I asked the deacon if he knew the major
motivator for prostitutes to enter the business.He acknowledged it was due to poverty, trying
to feed themselves or their families.I
asked him if it is a sin to feed your family.I asked him if the sin isn’t instead causing poverty that leaves
prostitution as one of few options.I
asked him why he failed to mention the men who will pay women for sex but not
to improve their economic situation so they don’t need to prostitute themselves.
He had no response other than that the
church can’t solve politics.

I responded by paraphrasing a quote from the late Brazilian Archbishop
Helder Camara, “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint.When I ask why they are poor, they call me a
communist.”

The deacon responded that the church cannot worry about or address the
political situations causing poverty.Really?That’s interesting.I seem to recall we just prayed for a small
army of parishioners who went to D.C. for the “March for Life.”I thought the Michigan and US Conference of
Catholic Bishops both spent a shit-ton of money towards electing and lobbying politicians
based upon policies the bishops support.I thought the Michigan bishops were working on a project to get more Catholics
to engage in the civic arena.I thought the
hierarchy has been braying about the politics of “religious liberty.”Or does the sexist Catholic hierarchy only
try to influence politics that regulate women’s bodies?Are the hierarchy just another set of poverty
pimps using the poor as a way to feel good about themselves when they toss some
crumbs in their direction?

I also asked the deacon how he can be so arrogant as to judge a person’s
profession simply based upon their clothes.He had no response.I regret I
did not share with him that my observation is people like politicians and
priests who regularly prostitute themselves by suspending their morals to
accept money from various interests tend to dress in suits and chasubles…Was that what these women were wearing
causing him to suspect they were prostitutes?

The deacon expressed an interest to further discuss my concerns but based
upon his comments I suspect it is because he would like either to justify
himself or “save” me. I got no sense that he was learning from me. If I find some
spare time, perhaps I will meet him and learn his motivation.In the
meantime, I will send him a link to this article and ask him to read it and a few
others.However, I do not wish to be
used for yet another of his “yay me” moments.

Sunday, November 26, 2017

My Sunday began by reading a bizarre Facebook rant posted on the
page of a “sister Sue, I’m better than you” type of uber-pious Catholic. The post ranted against the song, “(Feed theWorld) Do They Know It’s Christmas,” a 1984 charity effort to help relieve famine
induced starvation in Ethiopia that year.

I have my own concerns about some of the song’s dreary,
condescending lyrics but in general support the idea of using one’s gifts to
help feed starving people. However, the rant’s
author felt giving to the poor and hungry is “socialism” and “not about Jesus
in the least little bit,” and ended the rant by extolling US “values and
freedoms” as the salvation of the world…the adoption of which would enable poor
countries to, “save themselves” and thus, “wouldn’t need us to save them…” Keep in mind, this rant was written by a self-proclaimed
“good Christian” and posted on the page of another self-proclaimed “good
Christian” someone who is quick to offer fraternal correction to anyone whose
opinions, words or actions deviate from her view of morality. I dare
say the rant’s “let them eat cake” tone rivalled that of Marie Antoinette.

I found myself puzzling over the historical, political, and economic
ignorance about Africa, Ethiopia and even the song itself conveyed in the rant. I guess this person believes Ethiopia should
have just held elections and voted for rain.
Oh, wait, they did move to a democratic government in 1991 yet still
have an average annual per capita income of about $600 USD/year. Anyway, those concerns were dwarfed by realizing blatant
selfishness and nationalism currently pass for Christianity with some folks...too many folks.

Ironically, MT 25:41-45 was part of today’s gospel reading at Mass. Please allow me to quote what I’m sure the
aforementioned folks must consider to be socialist drivel from that gospel
passage:

Then he will say to those on his left,
‘Depart from me, you accursed…. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was
thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me
no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did
not care for me.’ Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you
hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’ He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say
to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for
me.’

The homily I heard immediately following
the reading of that gospel passage helped snap some puzzle pieces into place. Did
the homily discuss the gospel reading?
Nah! The gospel passage played
second fiddle to promoting a diocesan evangelization campaign.

At this point you might still be puzzled
because to you, caring for the starving might tie in very nicely with
evangelizing…walking the talk. Allow me
to share a bit about the diocesan campaign.
The campaign assumes that the people sitting in the pews are the “found”
sheep in the flock and those not sitting in the pews are “lost.” Perhaps the pews have special varnish that
seeps virtue into one’s body by just sitting there because the object of the
evangelization game is to get more buns in the pews. The formula for doing so is to form your
evangelization plan based upon answering the following questions contained in a
handy brochure:

First you “Grow” in your own faith:

1. PRAY: When in your day will you
commit to pray?

2. STUDY: What can you study, read and
attend to learn about your faith this week?

3. ENGAGE: How can you become more
involved in your parish?

4. SERVE: What can you volunteer to do
this month to help those in need?

And then “Go” and evangelize those
people who are obviously inferior to you because their bun is not in the pew
every Sunday:

1. Ask the Holy Spirit to bring to mind
someone in your life who is no longer coming to church. Write his/her name:

2. How will you pray for him/her?

3. How can you share your faith with
him/her?

4. What could you invite him/her to?

5. How could you accompany him/her?

I continue to assert that some of the
best followers of Jesus are people who did not “fall away” from the Catholic
Church. They fled at top speed as if
exiting a burning building. I also think
some of the most lost souls I have met are bishops and priests as well as
uber-pious laypeople. Therefore, I do
not limit my evangelization to people who do not attend Mass. Rather, I think some of the people most in
need of re-introduction to the gospel messages sit their happy asses in the
pews on a pretty regular basis…sort of like this person braying like a donkey
that feeding starving people is totally unrelated to Jesus. Maybe she or the bishop will be my
evangelization targets.

I also notice that in this magical evangelization
formula, daily you are to pray. Weekly
you are to put your bun in the pew. But
just monthly do you need to worry about anyone needing assistance.

For many hierarchy members, once per
month would be an improvement over their current efforts to feed the poor. Recall
my former pastor is giving a new meaning to “orange is the new black…” having
traded in his black clerics for an orange prison jumpsuit, serving a lengthy
sentence for embezzling huge sums of parish money for his personal use…and we
have another priest waiting in the wings for embezzlement trial for $5M
USD. But, I digress... In general, I
raised my kids to help others on a daily if not perpetual basis...sort of
always keep that radar up observing the situations of others so as to offer
assistance in a sensitive way that preserves dignity…on the recipients’
schedules not on yours.

The formula also speaks of spiritual formation studies. It has been my experience that it does not require a lot of prayer or studying theology to give someone a sandwich when they are hungry. For example, I have provided financial assistance anonymously even to some of my worst critics when they have fallen upon hard financial times. But, I do understand it might require extensive theological gymnastics to contort the gospel into a self-serving interpretation that justifies you not feeding the hungry. If you intend to walk side by side with people in your respective spiritual journeys, judging not, lest ye be judged, it does not require a lot of theology study. But, if you wish to assume a moral high ground...possibly whilst denying food to the hungry, that indeed requires extensive studying.

It is clear the clergy, who need
an audience to remain employed, promote a bias of spiritual superiority to
those who merely sit in the pews even if exhibiting only little regard for
people’s needs. The clergy play to their audience. It's easier to keep the uber-pious coming if they remain largely unchallenged and feel as though they wear a gold star ofmoral superiority upon their foreheads. It is my observation, that this is a case of clergy molding the laity into the same do-nothing-but-feel-superior-about-it crowd as themselves.

Thus, we logically
arrive at a subset of people who claim superior mastery of Christianity over
others yet overtly reject the gospel by not only turning their backs on
starving people, but doing so with a flourish of self-righteous scorn, blaming
the starving for their state of starvation.
I guess in their version of the gospel, it reads, ‘Lord, when did we see
you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not
minister to your needs?’ He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, you are
right. Do not buy into socialist
propaganda and feed hungry people for they were hungry but they deserved a lecture on socio-political economics instead…”

I invite you to select your favorite lost-sheep
clergy members and evangelize them. But,
don’t worry. You needn’t insult them by
giving them money lest they feel they are the recipient of socialist ill-gotten gains…receiving
money from those who have more and giving it to priests who don’t have as
much. Just offer to help them once per
month; maybe take them to an interesting lecture on dealing with abusive
personalities or something

About Me

I am a single mother of three who from the eyes of the Roman Catholic hierarchy is in full communion with the Church. But I question if any woman is capable of being in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church due to clericalism, sexism, and the marginalization, and emotional abuse of women.
I hold a master degree in theology from Loyola (Master of Pastoral Studies, M.P.S.). I am not employed by the Catholic Church but rather am an executive consultant.
Some ask if I want to be a priest. We are baptized priest, prophet and king. I feel I am more called to exercise my prophetic voice than a priestly one.
(Artwork supplied courtesy of one of my daughters.)